Posted on 10/16/2005 6:40:03 PM PDT by quidnunc
The White House branded its increasingly vocal conservative critics as "cynical" yesterday as the dispute over President George W Bush's nomination of his official lawyer to the Supreme Court deepened.
Many Republicans have described Harriet Miers as unqualified for such an important job. They are lobbying for an ultra-conservative with an established judicial record.
Critics have seized on correspondence between Miss Miers and the Bush family to portray her as a lightweight.
Mr Bush's top aide, the White House chief of staff Andy Card, criticised the campaign by influential party figures to prevent Miss Miers's elevation to America's most powerful court.
"I'm a little surprised they came out of the box so cynically," he told a television interviewer.
The use of such language by a top Bush aide about prominent Republican party supporters was unprecedented, indicating a growing sense of desperation.
The White House has suffered a dire six weeks during which it has been criticised for the handling of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war and its legislative programme.
As Mr Bush's approval ratings have sunk to an all-time low, his chief strategist, Karl Rove, has faced questioning for his role in the leaking of a CIA agent's name.
To add to the Republican's woes, the party's "iron fist" in Congress, Tom DeLay, has been indicted for criminal conspiracy and money laundering.
He says the charges are politically motivated.
Newsweek magazine noted yesterday that the Bush administration was now being seen as "a political machine that has lost its bearings, and even its skill, in a whorl of war, hurricanes, scandal, internal strife and second-term ennui".
Such talk has increased the Bush team's determination not to suffer defeat on the Miers nomination. But many believe the case against her is already overwhelming.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The president believes he has nominated a principled person who will be a principled jurist. He believes she has a clear originalist philosophy, and will be an excellent supreme court justice in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas.
Now, I suppose if you think he is deliberately lying, then yes he has violated conservative principles. But if he is telling the truth, or at least the truth as he believes it, then this particular fight isn't about principle, it is about trust and faith.
I don't blame people for not having trust and faith. I don't believe that a lack of trust, or a lack of faith, is sufficient reason to call an intelligent, highly successful person an idiot, incompetent, a closet liberal, or a syncophant kiss-up. All of which are adjectives used to describe this nominee.
I happen to believe that a prime conservative principle is to not make baseless personal attacks in order to advance a cause, no matter how just.
I do understand that some believe Bush violated a principle here, and I think that is why the arguments are so heated -- it is not clear that he has violated a principle, you have to assume motives for his act, or assume outcomes not known.
Those who simply believe that only a judge with a long record could be acceptable now have a consistant position. She isn't the first nominee not to meet that qualification, but these people believe that with the stakes so high, we should only appoint people with a judicial paper trail long enough to be certain.
My only argument with them is that appelate court justices still are bound by supreme court precedent (in fact, some of our high-quality candidates have made rulings which we would disagree with precisely because they are following supreme court precedent that we assume they would overturn if promoted).
There is no way to know how they will react when they don't have to abide by precedent. No matter how good their appelate record is, we can't be absolutely sure. We don't see the cards ahead of time.
Miers is certainly much more of a gamble for us than any of our superstar picks. But they aren't sure things.
Bullhockers.
Business is business, and that's how law firms work.
I can't speak for others, but I for one did not want a fight. I had blithely assumed Bush would make a good pick. I thought Roberts was a good pick from the start. When W picked Miers I was surprised and depressed. The more I learn about her, the less hope I have that she will be a quality consistent conservative justice.
I must admit that W picking Miers is a tipping point of sorts. The other issues that rankled me - deficits, no vetos of pork, campaign finance nonsense, the bloated spendthrift perscription drug plan, Marshal Plan for NO etc, I repressed because of the WOT, taxes, and judges. W knocked away one of my three pillars of support.
I personally don't know anyone pleased or happy about the Miers pick (I work in a white collar setting). Even if W antagonized only a few million conservatives it can really hurt in this 51:49 body politic.
Is there any reason to believe that Janice Rodgers-Brown, who repudiates the New Deal in its entirety, who some commentators have accused of wanting to revert to Lochner, and who was a trusted aid to Governor Wilson, would have turned into a tie-dyed, bleeding-heart liberal hippie once she was elevated to the Supreme Court?
Might as well blame the rain for getting you wet. It's time to face reality: The Miers nomination has split the party, and the cost of getting her confirmed will be steep--assuming that's even possible.
The opposition from the right to Miers gives the Democrats a free pass to filibuster her, should they so decide. And they might so decide for no other reason than than to establish the precedent. Is that what you want?
The issues involved now go far beyond Miers herself. Forget about whether or not Miers is satisfactory. Forget about Bush losing face--that's already water under the bridge. What's actually best for the country, given the real-world politics of the situation?
Miers should withdraw. Not because she's not qualified. Not because she's not the Justice the President promised the base. (Maybe she is, and maybe she isn't, and even she may not know the answers to either of those questions.) She should withdraw because the political cost to the President and to the Party is now far too to high to continue--and is substantially higher than the political cost of her voluntarily withdrawing. Especially when one considers what a succesful filibuster of Miers would do to the next SCOTUS nomination, which is a highly likely event actuarily. The situation as it stands gives her and the President more than sufficient cover to justify her withdrawal.
We don't need a brow-nosing, vacillating, toadying trial lawyer on the Supreme Court, we need an originalist, and a federalist.
That's what we need!
She gave directly.
$1000 to Gore
$1000 to the DNC
$1000 to Lloyd Bentsen
To be fair...she gave much more to Republicans. She also gave the money to Gore when he was pro-life.
Sure is sad seeing the bushbots mindlessly and cynically throwing baseless personal insults at those who hold a position they disagree with.
What? This wasn't a bushbot, but part of the puritan movement? Never mind...
Puritans ?
They are not Puritan. There is nothing religious about them. They hate Bush. They hate Miers. I think you can figure it out.
"She also gave the money to Gore when he was pro-life."
common misconception.
gore cast multiple votes in favor of abortion from 1985-1988
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497421/posts?page=71#71
Gore had already begun to cast anti-life votes as a member of Congress before he undertook his campaign for the 1988 Dem. nomination.
Stellar, help me out here.
Her law firm, if it is like most, is mostly democrats. Yet 10 of the 24 people who got money from the PAC were republican. HER $415 donation went to one of the republicans, who in total got thousands of dollars.
It is the democrats in her firm who should be upset, as undoubtedly some of their money ended up going to republicans.
This has been explained on every thread that mentioned this canard about donations.
We need more, not fewer, Republicans like you. How about running for office?
And, yet, you apparently ignore the slights tossed at conservative commentators in this thread. Apparently are oblivious to your own derogatory comment labaling those in dissent as 'puritans'. And ignore someone disagreed with that assessment of Dobson. Namely myself, to whom it was directed.
Nice try attempting to discredit those in opposition, but your narrowed focus cannot deny the sum commentary of the thread.
CRAP!!! I was wrong. He has never been pro-life has he? He talked the talk, but just like Zell Miller said his vote shows his soul. He has NEVER voted in a pro-life manner has he?
Gore is a liar.
Sorry for my post. I knew better.
You're right. My bad.
BTW, there are I'm sure good conservatives who would not see this as a bad thing. I believe there is somewhat of a division in the conservative party when it comes to some of these issues, between those who lean more libertarian, and those who are more law-and-order types. I'm not asserting this to be true, just seems to be so.
Purity would divide us because we don't have the same pure positions. I believe the Terri Shiavo case proved that.
no problem, it is just something that continually got repeated and many here believed it-- it was a way of explaining away her contributions to gore back then. of course that "reason" was false.
This morning I got into an argument because I said to someone there was a split between Idealists and Pragmatists on an issue here in virginia, suggesting I was a pragmatist. They argued back that I was the idealist and they were pragmatic. Just too hard to label.
FOr a bit I was trying the "purist fanaticists" but that had too much of a negative connotation to some.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.